Increasing environmental awareness

 

 

 

The publication of the draft National Environment Policy (NEP) is a useful exercise irrespective of Government’s intentions, which, to put it mildly, are not always clear.

Government’s intense rhetoric coupled with action motivated primarily by the need to overcome threats of EU infringement proceedings is not the best way to move forward in environmental issues. Labour would certainly be no better. Past experience indicates that Labour are on the same wavelength as the PN even though their policies on a number of issues are not yet spelt out, in public at least.

In April 2010 Ernst & Young had concluded a Public Attitudes Survey on environmental issues commissioned by MEPA. The analysis of the results, available on the MEPA website makes interesting reading.

Of central importance are the conclusions relative to the inter-relationship between the environment and the economy: 69% of respondents held that the environment was as important as the economy, 23% held that the environment was more important than the economy whilst only 8% held that the economy is of over-riding importance.   

Air quality, waste management and land use top the list of the environmental concerns of the Maltese. In fact these are the most worrying issues, though certainly not the only ones.

The draft NEP collects in one document a detailed list of government’s environmental responsibilities, primarily resulting from the EU environmental acquis. There are also some areas covered by the draft NEP in respect of which the EU has no role. Government has erroneously described these as an indication of its determination to go beyond EU requirements.

A logical and down to earth reaction to the draft NEP is that we have been there before. A National Sustainable Development Strategy approved by Cabinet in late 2007 had approved practically a similar (although less detailed) document. It even had some specific targets all of which have been ignored by the Cabinet Minister who was responsible for their implementation: the Honourable Lawrence Gonzi whose portfolio of political responsibilities included and still includes Sustainable Development .

Is it ethical, I ask, for the Prime Minister to approve a strategy (through Cabinet)  with specific targets, ignore them, abolish the Commission which drew up the strategy and then re-present substantially the same strategy and proposals in a different form? Would you believe him if he now says that he is serious about implementation of strategies and proposals originally proposed in 2007 but ignored  by the government which he has led uninterruptedly since 2004?  Speaking for myself I don’t believe one word of what he says on the subject.       

The National Sustainable Development Strategy identified various targets. Most were undated, but some basic ones had a specific timeframe by which they had to be delivered.

Among the specific targets which Dr Gonzi as Prime Minister first approved but subsequently ignored are the following :

  1. By 2008 draw up a strategy to enhance the use of economic instruments (eco-taxation strategy),
  2. By 2008 put in place a permanent structure appropriately staffed and funded to monitor and review the implementation of the National Strategy for Sustainable Development,
  3. Within 18 months of the adoption of the National Strategy for Sustainable Development (that is by mid-2009) Ministries had to prepare their action plans on the implementation of the strategy in their portfolio of responsibilities,
  4. By 2010 draw up an integrated Spatial Development Plan to take forward the Sustainable Development Strategy, with the participation of major stakeholders.

None of the above targets have been met.

 Among the general targets approved in 2007 (4 years ago), before the re-election of Dr Gonzi as Prime Minister he had promised : 

  1. the drawing up and implementation of a policy addressing the issue of light pollution,
  2. the drawing up and implementation of a dust-control policy,
  3. a nationwide public footpath policy which delineates paths that the public can use,
  4. promotion of a culture of Corporate Social Responsibility by major firms,
  5. enhancing enforcement and monitoring to reduce the destabilising  effects on society of construction and quarrying activities.

  None of the above targets have been addressed.

 All the above nine proposals and many others originally forming part of the National Sustainable Development Strategy have re-surfaced in the draft NEP after being ignored for a number of years. Dr Gonzi’s proposals have a habit of hopping from one policy document to the other.

This is not a serious way of doing politics. Those who like Dr Gonzi proposed strategies and failed to implement them should have the decency of explaining why they failed in their mission. Instead of doing so Dr Gonzi organised a media circus at Xrobb l-Għaġin to explain to the media the “greening of his government”. Unfortunately no record is available of any of the journalists present taking him to task for trying to hide his failures.

 Notwithstanding the above some benefit will surely arise out of the debate on the draft NEP: even if we have been there before and discussed it not once, not twice but many times over without any tangible result to date. The public’s sensitivity to environmental issues is on the rise. Its environmental awareness is increasing rapidly.  Just 18 months before a general election I do not think that anyone can be deceived anymore on green issues.

Like the PL before it the PN in government has had its chance to deliver and failed.

 

 Published in the Independent n Sunday – Environment Supplement

October 2, 2011 

Lejn politika tal-ambjent

 

Dalgħodu ħadt sehem fil-Workshop dwar il-Pjan Nazzjonali għall-Ambjent. Dawn huma uħud r-riflessjonijiet tiegħi.

Li nitkellmu dwar il-politika ambjentali hu pass tajjeb. Id-diskussjoni iżda biex tkun ta’ kontribut posittiv trid tkun waħda onesta. Trid tirrispetta lil kull min ta’ ħinu u saħħtu fis-snin passati f’ħidma favur l-ambjent.

Tajjeb li neżaminaw l–analiżi dwar il-Public Attitudes Survey 2008 li d-ditta Ernest & Young (2010) ħejjiet fuq inkarigu tal-MEPA. Minn dan jirriżulta illi  69% ta’ dawk li wieġbu huma tal-fehma li l-ambjent huwa importanti daqs l-ekonomija filwaqt li 23% jidhrilhom illi l-ambjent huwa iktar imporanti mill-ekonomija.  8% biss għadhom tal-fehma tas-supremazija tal-ekonomija fuq l-ambjent.

Huwa b’sodisazzjoni li nosserva din l-attitudni ġdida. Attitudni li ilha tinħass tiżviluppa bil-mod il-mod. Hi riżultat tal-ħidma ta’ dawk kollha illi għal snin sħaħ ħadmu kontra l-kurrent b’bosta minnhom ikunu deskritti bħala eko-fundamentalisti.

Fid-dawl ta’ dan huwa iktar importanti li d-diskussjoni tal-lum tkun ċara u onesta. L-Issues Paper li għandna quddiemna tistaqsi ħafna mistoqsijiet. Imma sfortunatament għażlet illi tinjora l-fatt li ħafna mit-tweġibiet diġa ngħataw. Dawn qegħdin fl-Istrateġija Nazzjonali dwar l-Iżvilupp Sostenibbli approvata mill-Kabinett tal-Ministri lejn tmiem l-2007 wara proċess twil ta’ diskussjoni mas-soċjeta’ ċivili.

Mhux ser nidħol fid-dettal għax il-ħin ma jippermettix.  Ser nillimita ruħi għal eżempju wieħed: dwar it-tassazzjoni ambjentali.

L-Issues Paper  f’paġna 12 tistaqsina dwar x’naħsbu fuq sistema li tintaxxa t-tniġġiz flok ix-xogħol. Kumbinazzjoni fid-dokument ta’ qabel il-budget imniedi mill-Ministru tal-Finanzi  fl-istess jum tal-Issues Paper qed jiġi propost (f’paġna 136) ezerċizzju ta’ “tax shifting”. Jgħid li qed jikkonsidra d-dħul ta’ “carbon tax” u li hi l-intenzjoni li din tissostitwixxi taxxi oħra konnessi max-xogħol.

La l-Issues Paper u l-anqas id-dokument dwar il-budget ma jagħmlu l-iċken referenza għall-istrateġija nazzjonali dwar l-iżvilupp sostenibbli li diġa bil-kunsens tas-soċjeta’ ċivili u tal-Kabinett stabiliet fil-proposta 17 tagħha illi sal-2008 kellha titfassal strateġija dettaljata dwar l-użu ta’ strumenti ekonomiċi biex jippromwovu l-iżvilupp sostenibli f’Malta. L-2008 ilu li ġie u mar u flok strateġija dettaljata għandna iktar mistoqijiet. Din mhux serjeta’. Flok iktar mistoqsijiet kellu jkollna analiżi tat-taxxi ambjentali li ġja għandna fil-pajjiż u jekk dawn laħqux l-iskop li għalih saru. X’tgħallimna mill-eżerċizzju tal-eko-kontribuzzjoni?    Tgħallimna li  :

l-ewwel :          li taxxi ambjentali għandhom jintużaw għal skopijiet ambjentali u mhux għal skopijiet fiskali,

it-tieni :             ir-responsabbilta’ politika għal sistema ta’  tassazzjoni   ambjentali għandha tkun fdata f’idejn il-Ministeru għall-Ambjent u mhux f’idejn dak tal-Finanzi, biex b’hekk ikun iktar possibli li  t-titjib fil-qasam ambjentali jkun l-oġġettiv ewlieni tagħhom,

it-tielet :            li filwaqt li hemm bosta setturi li jistgħu jkunu soġġetti għal tassazzjoni ambjentali l-għażla tagħhom għandha issir bir-reqqa u wara studju tal-impatti kemm ambjentali kif ukoll soċjali.

F’dan il-kuntest irrid ngħid li mhux aċċettabbli li l-Gvern iħabbar illi qed jikkonsidra “carbon tax” mingħajr ma jinfurma lill-pubbliku dwar xi studji għamel mhux biss fuq kemm jista’ jdaħħal iżda ukoll dwar kif din ser teffettwa kemm il-kwalita’ tal-ħajja kif ukoll il-livell tal-għajxien tal-faxex differenti tas-soċjeta. Dan l-istudju, jekk sar, s’issa għadu ma rax id-dawl tax-xemx. Fil-fatt dalghodu jiena għamilt talba formali taħt il-provedimenti tal-Konvenzjoni ta’ Åarhus biex jekk jeżistu jiġu rilaxxjati l-istudji relattivi. Dawn huma l-affarijiet li jmissna niddiskutu.

M’huwiex iktar żmien li nlabalbu. Huwa żmien li dak li ġie imfassal jitwettaq. Wara li l-proċess ta’ diskussjoni li beda madwar 5 snin ilu kien wassal għal konkluzjoni fl-forma ta’ strateġija li tintegra l-ħidma ekonomika ma dik soċjali u ambjentali dan il-proċess ta’ diskussjoni tal-lum ser iwassal għal duplikazzjoni. F’pajjiż li kontinwament ġustament nilmentaw li la għandna riżorsi u l-anqas biżżejjed nies imħarrġa, l-inqas li konna nistennew huwa li naħlu l-ħin u riżorsi billi flok jitwettaq dak li ġie deċiz nerġgħu niftħu d-diskussjoni.

Nikkonkludi billi nħeġġiġkom biex tifhmu li l-aħjar triq il-quddiem hi illi nkunu kapaċi nintegraw l-isforzi tagħna. Dan hu dak li ppruvat tagħmel l-istrateġija nazzjonali dwar l-iżvilupp sostenibbli. Għandna nfittxu li nimxu f’dik it-triq billi nimplimentaw ir-rakkomandazzjonjiet tagħha. Forsi l-ewwel pass ikun li kif tistabilixxi l-istess Strateġija kull Ministeru jfassal pjan t’Azzjoni (avolja sentejn tard) biex iqiegħed fil-prattika dak li tipproponi l-istrateġja. B’hekk forsi tieqaf darba għal dejjem id-drawwa li żviluppat f’dan il-pajjiż illi r-rapporti u l-istrateġji iservu biss biex jitnisslu  rapporti oħra. Nittama biss li mid-diskussjoni tal-lum nagħrfu nibnu fuq dak li sar mhux biss b’rispett lejn min iddedika ħinu għall-pajjiż iżda fuq kollox biex nużaw il-ftit riżorsi li għandna l-aħjar mod.

Imma l-Kummissjoni Nazzjonali dwar l-Iżvilupp Sostenibbli jeħtieġ li tibda tiltaqa’ : ilha tlett snin wieqfa. Xhieda tal-impenn tal-Gvern favur l-Iżvilupp Sostenibbli.

Thoughts for an Environmental Policy

The government has published a number of policy documents for public consultation. Two deal with different aspects of water policy while a third deals with issues for a National Environment Policy.

Also of relevance is an Ernst & Young Report commissioned by the Malta Environment and Planning Authority on a 2008 Public Attitudes Survey. It is dated April 2010. Although recently published I do not recollect reading anything in the press about this survey. One of the conclusions of this survey should be an eye opener to policy makers as to the central importance which the Maltese public attaches to the environment.

In the 2008 Public Attitudes Survey it was concluded that 69 per cent of respondents held the view that the environment was as important as the economy. On the other hand 23 per cent of respondents considered that the environment was more important than the economy while only eight per cent considered the economy as being of overriding importance.

To my mind these are significant conclusions contrasting with current national policy which considers that the economy has an ­overriding priority over the environment. The Maltese public thinks otherwise: 92 per cent of respondents of the Mepa Public Attitudes Survey have understood that the economy should not be an overriding consideration in environmental policy formulation. Now this is what sustainable development is all about.

Contrary to what green-washers imply, being committed to sustainable development does not mean that one seeks to balance or mitigate environmental, social and cultural impacts of economic development. Sustainable development speaks another language altogether for which unfortunately there is still a lack of translators. Real commitment to sustainable development conveys the message that humankind does not own the earth. It shares the earth with other species together with which it forms part of one eco-system.

The way in which our society has evolved and is organised is such that it considers human activity as meriting overriding importance. In fact it is often stated that policies are anthropocentric. Both PN and PL environmental policies can be grouped in this category. AD together with other Green parties around the globe differs as it follows a eco-centric path. But then the ecology has no vote!

Sustainable development properly construed considers the need of an eco-centric environmental policy. This signifies that a holistic approach is applied through which impacts on the whole eco-system are considered.

Now this is completely different from the manner in which our society is accustomed to look at itself. An eco-centric approach leads us to take a long term view in contrast to the short-sighted view of our immediate interests. This does not only impact land use but also waste management, agriculture and fishing, light pollution, acoustic pollution, air quality, water resources, mineral deposits, transport policy, the protection of our ecological heritage and many other areas.

When one considers the above I cannot understand why the authors of the National Environment Policy Issues Paper ignored the National Sustainable Development Strategy when formulating the Issues Paper for public consultation. They considered the 2008 State of the Environment Report and the Parliamentary debate which ensued together with the Ernst & Young report above quoted as the basis for a discussion.

In so doing they ignored completely a consultation process spanning a number of years which answered most of the questions which the Issues Paper poses.

This is surely not a new way of doing politics. It is a way with which most of us are familiar as it does away with past achievements and seeks to start a fresh page, ignoring everything and everyone. Knowing that at least one of the drafters of the National Environment Policy Issues Paper was actively involved in the process leading to the National Sustainability Strategy, I must ask the obvious question: Is the Issues Paper the first step towards the scrapping of the National Sustainability Strategy?

The current Bill before Parliament which seeks to consolidate existing legislation on land use planning and the environment removes all references to the National Sustainable Development Commission. It was stated repeatedly that a separate legislative measure will be proposed dealing with issues of sustainable development. Yet to date this is nowhere in sight. Does this confirm that there have been second thoughts on the National Sustainability Strategy?

The Strategy should currently be in the process of implementation. Section 5 of the Strategy entitled “The Way Ahead” provides that ministers have to produce action plans for the implementation of the National Sustainable Development Strategy in their portfolio within 18 months from the adoption of the strategy.

The strategy was adopted by Cabinet more than 18 moons ago yet the action plans are nowhere in sight.

I have never had any doubt that this government is being consistent with its beliefs: it says one thing, but when push comes to shove it proceeds with doing something else.

published in The Times : August 14, 2010